Re: [flexcoders] The end of ActionScript 3 as an EcmaScript 4 implementation
Can we get back on topic here? This is a Flex technical discussion forum discussing the future of ACTIONSCRIPT. Can the paid MS-pundits and SL-bashers go somewhere else please? ___ Joseph Balderson, Flash Platform Developer | http://joeflash.ca Scott Barnes wrote: Understandable, at times folks can have different levels of Success. In that right now China is ontop in the Gold Medal tally, therefore they are the most successful right? Personally being an Australian, I'd consider the 7 gold medals we have now as being success as that's 7 gold medals that someone in a given sport has that you or I don't? Eye of the beholder is more the lesson here? As for the Silverlight Video Quality, i'll let others echo what majority have stated ( I have tonnes more of these ): /The online coverage of the Olympic Games on MSN is spectacular. For this Olympics, in the digital media realm, a milestone innovation will surely be the entrance of Microsoft's Silverlight. – Andy Plesser, Beet.TV/ // /Initially, they [NBC] expected to use Adobe's Flash, given that is the standard for video delivered over the Internet these days. But, as they began to hash things out with Microsoft during a series of all-day meetings at NBC's 30 Rockefeller Plaza headquarters, Microsoft was able to show NBC some ways it could do more using its homegrown Silverlight technology. – Ina Fried, CNET/ // /Like Michael Phelps, Microsoft is chasing gold at the Olympics. With its Silverlight rich Internet application technology, Microsoft is helping NBC break records in online viewership…/ If Microsoft's http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Application-Development/Microsoft-Proving-Ground-Silverlight-at-the-Olympics/ Silverlight continues to have the success it has had in streaming video http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Application-Development/Microsoft-Proving-Ground-Silverlight-at-the-Olympics/ coverage of the Olympic Games around the world, it could mean gold for Microsoft as the software giant continues its competition with Adobe and that company's ubiquitous Flash technology _– Darryl Taft, eWeek_// //__// ///_Experts agree the enhanced features will boost usage of Microsoft's Web technology. 'This is an opportunity for them to showcase key features,' said Will Richmond, analyst and author of VideoNuze.com. 'It will certainly put Silverlight on the map with tens of millions of downloads because of the Olympics.' – Daisy Whitney, TVWeek_/// ///__/// ///It's not often when a piece of technology impresses me enough that I do the 'wow' thing when I'm using it. But the Silverlight streaming video implementation on NBCOlympics.com is truly awesome … I have to give Microsoft and its technology partners that pulled this off for the Olympics a huge round of applause. – Jon Perlow, ZDNET/// // HTH. On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 9:27 AM, Cole Joplin [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Scott, I'm not exactly on board with Silverlight will continue to have successes as it has today. It's far too early to make that broad a statement. One day, maybe, but today? No. The first real all-Silverlight site, Ice Cube's UVNTV.com, has not been successful. Big fanfare, bad video, losing traffic at the plugin download page, big dud. Second big fanfare is the Silverlight player for video of the Beijing Olympics. Again, video quality has been roundly criticized as awful. Online viewership is way down from what they expected. Today, people don't want to download the Silverlight plugin. That is not a success. Not yet. --Cole --- On *Sat, 8/16/08, Scott Barnes /[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/* wrote: From: Scott Barnes [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [flexcoders] The end of ActionScript 3 as an EcmaScript 4 implementation To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com mailto:flexcoders@yahoogroups.com Date: Saturday, August 16, 2008, 1:30 AM Anatole, I understand there is a sense of umbrage towards Microsoft over this decision; I disagree with some of the wild theories floating around as to what the real motivation behind this is. Seven entities in total disagreed with Mozilla and Adobe that the proposal was a right fit. I however look forward to seeing what the next phase of this standard will become, and overall Silverlight will continue to have successes as it has today, if either decision were to be blessed around this said standard. Silverlight has the DLR, so if folks want to spin-up their own iteration of an ECMA standard of their choosing, you're more than welcome to it and I'd be curious to see how you triumph! HTH.
Re: [flexcoders] The end of ActionScript 3 as an EcmaScript 4 implementation
Well, whomever is holding things up, a standard is only a guideline, right? And that's the risk you take when you base a technology on a comittee: sometimes, and for whatever reason, that committee might steer things in a different direction than you originally intended. Otherwise Adobe would be just another bully in the playground instead of a partner. So what happened was inevitable. Whether it's MS's fault or anyone else's we could debate until we're blue in the face. Who cares? If the committee in charge of the standard is holding back innovation, there are three choices: 1) stifle innovation in favour of the committee's wishes; 2) abandon the standard altogether; 3) create a new standard out of the ashes of the old. Thank god Adobe isn't kowtowing to the new Harmony standard, that would horribly cripple ActionScript. As an ActionScript developer, I want more innovation, not less, thank-you-very-much. That leaves Adobe with the uncomfortable choice of 2) or 3): each have their drawbacks. Adobe could abandon any ECMA standard altogether, and they'd be within their rights to do so. I don't see Java suffering for SUN's decision not to associate with (what is now) ECMA. (Other than the fact that it's a server-side dinosaur *ducks, runs* :) [KIDDING!] But ultimately I believe Adobe's best bet would be to form their own working committee, their own ECMA standard, similar to what MS has done with C#. Maybe then we'll see private constructors, method overloading and multiple inheritance in the language. Being a pessimist about web standardization, I could not envision the day when ActionScript would ever become a _usable_ web standard, so this comes as no great surprise. Hell, the WC3 and the various browser makers can't get their head out of their ass long enough to put together a standard that will be adopted in less than 20 years for crying out loud. What makes you think ActionScript would ever be adopted in enough browsers with enough standardization not to repeat the utter compatibility mess that CSS/JS is currently in? It's a fantastic idea, but I think Adobe's decision to try and have ActionScript in its current incarnation through tamarin be adopted as a new web standard was too far ahead of its time. I agree with one statement that has been made, can't remember by whom: the web is not ready for ECMAScript 4. Hell, it's not even ready for JavaScript 3 or CSS 3. Adobe would do far better to create their own standard that doesn't try to shoehorn the rest of the web into ActionScript, and get on with continuing being a serious programming language. Let the web standards pundits have ECMA 3.1 and Harmony. Maybe by the time my grandchildren are doing web programming it'll be ready for prime time. And people like myself can focus on developing robust web applications that actually work, with a serious language that continues to kick ass all over the internet. ___ Joseph Balderson, Flash Platform Developer | http://joeflash.ca hank williams wrote: I don't quite see how it's a big step backward *or* a black eye for Adobe (as your blog argued). There are dozens of languages in widespread use out there... AS3 being (approximately) based on a standard, while a good bullet point for marketing, never yielded any advantage as far as I could see. This is a valid point, but the reason I call it a black eye is because adobe spent a lot of time hanging their hat on the idea that this was going to be a standard. To the extent that was helpful to them (I presume it was otherwise they wouldnt have bothered) it is no longer an accurate statement. Adobe wanted the industry to move one way, and Microsoft forced it to move another way. Hank Troy. -- blog: whydoeseverythingsuck.com -- Flexcoders Mailing List FAQ: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/files/flexcodersFAQ.txt Search Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/flexcoders%40yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links
Re: [flexcoders] The end of ActionScript 3 as an EcmaScript 4 implementation
Anatole, I understand there is a sense of umbrage towards Microsoft over this decision; I disagree with some of the wild theories floating around as to what the real motivation behind this is. Seven entities in total disagreed with Mozilla and Adobe that the proposal was a right fit. I however look forward to seeing what the next phase of this standard will become, and overall Silverlight will continue to have successes as it has today, if either decision were to be blessed around this said standard. Silverlight has the DLR, so if folks want to spin-up their own iteration of an ECMA standard of their choosing, you're more than welcome to it and I'd be curious to see how you triumph! HTH. On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 8:36 PM, Anatole Tartakovsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Scott,I hope you realize that this goes beyond Silverlight or any particular player - but to the heart of the browsers problems today - performance and robustness. If it was not for IE market share, ActionScript would of been de-facto ES4 standard as it is supported by Mozilla and would be quickly migrated to other OS browsers. And I have very low expectations of Microsoft willingness to maintain IE on par with performance, compatibility and robustness requirements - based on personal experience. The fact that this standard is blocked means war - and I would suggest as the first step for the community to create a plugin script implementation ( recognized as attribute on script tag, loaded along with Flash for faster market penetration) to give developers a choice between old javascript and actionscript - that can remove most of the power Microsoft exercised last week Sincerely, Anatole Tartakovsky On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 8:00 PM, Scott Barnes [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: In what way is Silverlight proposing a new standard? ECMA decision has no affect on Silverlight. C# for example is a standard today, everything we are doing or using either adheres to a standard, furthemore XAML for example falls under our (Open Specification Promise) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Specification_Promise. The DLR was introduced to allow dynamic languages outside the mainstream the ability to enter the RIA space, without imposing restrictions or ensuring they must abide by C# or ActionScript to get access? I would of thought this is an obvious positive for RIA overall (Adobe's Ryan Stewart agrees - http://blogs.zdnet.com/Stewart/?p=356). Microsoft and several other folks (Yahoo!, DOJO etc) all agreed that this wasn't the right fit, but are all committed to ensure we find a right fit. *shrug*.. so lumping this entirely in Microsoft's lap is a little skewed in thinking. HTH. On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 8:37 AM, Cole Joplin [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: --- On *Thu, 8/14/08, Scott Barnes [EMAIL PROTECTED]*wrote: C# is an ECMA-334 standard. As to how this affects Silverlight? Cole, could you elaborate? Sure. Microsoft wants a new standard for web scripting using Silverlight's RIA framework via .NET and the Dynamic Language Runtime. They want to bring support for IronPython and IronRuby to web scripting. Some see that as a Microsoft technology lock-in. Just like some saw ES4 as an Adobe lock-in (or at least a validation of it). ECMA-334 was precisely about Microsoft making C# a standard. It's a standard, but not the standard. It's an off-shoot. So, perhaps it is best that history just repeats itself. Let them create a separate ECMA standard for Microsoft/Silverlight, and another for Adobe/Flash. Let's whip out some ECMA-402, and ECMA-402 -- pick a number. My point was that this was not going to get resolved in ES4, where one idea was going to get picked over the other. Standards promote commonality and adoption. Those things can translate into competitive advantage. Microsoft was not going to let Adobe have ES4 as the standard. It was too much of an advantage. --Cole -- Regards, Scott Barnes Rich Client Platform Manager Microsoft. http://blogs.msdn.com/msmossyblog -- Regards, Scott Barnes Rich Client Platform Manager Microsoft. http://blogs.msdn.com/msmossyblog
Re: [flexcoders] The end of ActionScript 3 as an EcmaScript 4 implementation
It's unfortunate that the rest of the online community is held back because MS and others are behind trend. - Original Message - From: Scott Barnes To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2008 8:30 AM Subject: Re: [flexcoders] The end of ActionScript 3 as an EcmaScript 4 implementation Anatole, I understand there is a sense of umbrage towards Microsoft over this decision; I disagree with some of the wild theories floating around as to what the real motivation behind this is. Seven entities in total disagreed with Mozilla and Adobe that the proposal was a right fit. I however look forward to seeing what the next phase of this standard will become, and overall Silverlight will continue to have successes as it has today, if either decision were to be blessed around this said standard. Silverlight has the DLR, so if folks want to spin-up their own iteration of an ECMA standard of their choosing, you're more than welcome to it and I'd be curious to see how you triumph! HTH. On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 8:36 PM, Anatole Tartakovsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Scott, I hope you realize that this goes beyond Silverlight or any particular player - but to the heart of the browsers problems today - performance and robustness. If it was not for IE market share, ActionScript would of been de-facto ES4 standard as it is supported by Mozilla and would be quickly migrated to other OS browsers. And I have very low expectations of Microsoft willingness to maintain IE on par with performance, compatibility and robustness requirements - based on personal experience. The fact that this standard is blocked means war - and I would suggest as the first step for the community to create a plugin script implementation ( recognized as attribute on script tag, loaded along with Flash for faster market penetration) to give developers a choice between old javascript and actionscript - that can remove most of the power Microsoft exercised last week Sincerely, Anatole Tartakovsky On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 8:00 PM, Scott Barnes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In what way is Silverlight proposing a new standard? ECMA decision has no affect on Silverlight. C# for example is a standard today, everything we are doing or using either adheres to a standard, furthemore XAML for example falls under our (Open Specification Promise) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Specification_Promise. The DLR was introduced to allow dynamic languages outside the mainstream the ability to enter the RIA space, without imposing restrictions or ensuring they must abide by C# or ActionScript to get access? I would of thought this is an obvious positive for RIA overall (Adobe's Ryan Stewart agrees - http://blogs.zdnet.com/Stewart/?p=356). Microsoft and several other folks (Yahoo!, DOJO etc) all agreed that this wasn't the right fit, but are all committed to ensure we find a right fit. *shrug*.. so lumping this entirely in Microsoft's lap is a little skewed in thinking. HTH. On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 8:37 AM, Cole Joplin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- On Thu, 8/14/08, Scott Barnes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: C# is an ECMA-334 standard. As to how this affects Silverlight? Cole, could you elaborate? Sure. Microsoft wants a new standard for web scripting using Silverlight's RIA framework via .NET and the Dynamic Language Runtime. They want to bring support for IronPython and IronRuby to web scripting. Some see that as a Microsoft technology lock-in. Just like some saw ES4 as an Adobe lock-in (or at least a validation of it). ECMA-334 was precisely about Microsoft making C# a standard. It's a standard, but not the standard. It's an off-shoot. So, perhaps it is best that history just repeats itself. Let them create a separate ECMA standard for Microsoft/Silverlight, and another for Adobe/Flash. Let's whip out some ECMA-402, and ECMA-402 -- pick a number. My point was that this was not going to get resolved in ES4, where one idea was going to get picked over the other. Standards promote commonality and adoption. Those things can translate into competitive advantage. Microsoft was not going to let Adobe have ES4 as the standard. It was too much of an advantage. --Cole -- Regards, Scott Barnes Rich Client Platform Manager Microsoft. http://blogs.msdn.com/msmossyblog -- Regards, Scott Barnes Rich Client Platform Manager Microsoft. http://blogs.msdn.com/msmossyblog
Re: [flexcoders] The end of ActionScript 3 as an EcmaScript 4 implementation
Scott, I'm not exactly on board with Silverlight will continue to have successes as it has today. It's far too early to make that broad a statement. One day, maybe, but today? No. The first real all-Silverlight site, Ice Cube's UVNTV.com, has not been successful. Big fanfare, bad video, losing traffic at the plugin download page, big dud. Second big fanfare is the Silverlight player for video of the Beijing Olympics. Again, video quality has been roundly criticized as awful. Online viewership is way down from what they expected. Today, people don't want to download the Silverlight plugin. That is not a success. Not yet. --Cole --- On Sat, 8/16/08, Scott Barnes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Scott Barnes [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [flexcoders] The end of ActionScript 3 as an EcmaScript 4 implementation To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com Date: Saturday, August 16, 2008, 1:30 AM Anatole, I understand there is a sense of umbrage towards Microsoft over this decision; I disagree with some of the wild theories floating around as to what the real motivation behind this is. Seven entities in total disagreed with Mozilla and Adobe that the proposal was a right fit. I however look forward to seeing what the next phase of this standard will become, and overall Silverlight will continue to have successes as it has today, if either decision were to be blessed around this said standard. Silverlight has the DLR, so if folks want to spin-up their own iteration of an ECMA standard of their choosing, you're more than welcome to it and I'd be curious to see how you triumph! HTH. On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 8:36 PM, Anatole Tartakovsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Scott, I hope you realize that this goes beyond Silverlight or any particular player - but to the heart of the browsers problems today - performance and robustness. If it was not for IE market share, ActionScript would of been de-facto ES4 standard as it is supported by Mozilla and would be quickly migrated to other OS browsers. And I have very low expectations of Microsoft willingness to maintain IE on par with performance, compatibility and robustness requirements - based on personal experience. The fact that this standard is blocked means war - and I would suggest as the first step for the community to create a plugin script implementation ( recognized as attribute on script tag, loaded along with Flash for faster market penetration) to give developers a choice between old javascript and actionscript - that can remove most of the power Microsoft exercised last week Sincerely, Anatole Tartakovsky On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 8:00 PM, Scott Barnes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In what way is Silverlight proposing a new standard? ECMA decision has no affect on Silverlight. C# for example is a standard today, everything we are doing or using either adheres to a standard, furthemore XAML for example falls under our (Open Specification Promise) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Specification_Promise. The DLR was introduced to allow dynamic languages outside the mainstream the ability to enter the RIA space, without imposing restrictions or ensuring they must abide by C# or ActionScript to get access? I would of thought this is an obvious positive for RIA overall (Adobe's Ryan Stewart agrees - http://blogs.zdnet.com/Stewart/?p=356). Microsoft and several other folks (Yahoo!, DOJO etc) all agreed that this wasn't the right fit, but are all committed to ensure we find a right fit. *shrug*.. so lumping this entirely in Microsoft's lap is a little skewed in thinking. HTH. On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 8:37 AM, Cole Joplin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- On Thu, 8/14/08, Scott Barnes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: C# is an ECMA-334 standard. As to how this affects Silverlight? Cole, could you elaborate? Sure. Microsoft wants a new standard for web scripting using Silverlight's RIA framework via .NET and the Dynamic Language Runtime. They want to bring support for IronPython and IronRuby to web scripting. Some see that as a Microsoft technology lock-in. Just like some saw ES4 as an Adobe lock-in (or at least a validation of it). ECMA-334 was precisely about Microsoft making C# a standard. It's a standard, but not the standard. It's an off-shoot. So, perhaps it is best that history just repeats itself. Let them create a separate ECMA standard for Microsoft/Silverlight, and another for Adobe/Flash. Let's whip out some ECMA-402, and ECMA-402 -- pick a number. My point was that this was not going to get resolved in ES4, where one idea was going to get picked over the other. Standards promote commonality and adoption. Those things can translate into competitive advantage. Microsoft was not going to let Adobe have ES4 as the standard. It was too much of an advantage. --Cole -- Regards, Scott Barnes Rich Client Platform Manager Microsoft.
Re: [flexcoders] The end of ActionScript 3 as an EcmaScript 4 implementation
Understandable, at times folks can have different levels of Success. In that right now China is ontop in the Gold Medal tally, therefore they are the most successful right? Personally being an Australian, I'd consider the 7 gold medals we have now as being success as that's 7 gold medals that someone in a given sport has that you or I don't? Eye of the beholder is more the lesson here? As for the Silverlight Video Quality, i'll let others echo what majority have stated ( I have tonnes more of these ): *The online coverage of the Olympic Games on MSN is spectacular. For this Olympics, in the digital media realm, a milestone innovation will surely be the entrance of Microsoft's Silverlight. – Andy Plesser, Beet.TV* ** *Initially, they [NBC] expected to use Adobe's Flash, given that is the standard for video delivered over the Internet these days. But, as they began to hash things out with Microsoft during a series of all-day meetings at NBC's 30 Rockefeller Plaza headquarters, Microsoft was able to show NBC some ways it could do more using its homegrown Silverlight technology. – Ina Fried, CNET* ** *Like Michael Phelps, Microsoft is chasing gold at the Olympics. With its Silverlight rich Internet application technology, Microsoft is helping NBC break records in online viewership… If Microsoft'shttp://www.eweek.com/c/a/Application-Development/Microsoft-Proving-Ground-Silverlight-at-the-Olympics/Silverlight continues to have the success it has had in streaming videohttp://www.eweek.com/c/a/Application-Development/Microsoft-Proving-Ground-Silverlight-at-the-Olympics/coverage of the Olympic Games around the world, it could mean gold for Microsoft as the software giant continues its competition with Adobe and that company's ubiquitous Flash technology – Darryl Taft, eWeek* ** *Experts agree the enhanced features will boost usage of Microsoft's Web technology. 'This is an opportunity for them to showcase key features,' said Will Richmond, analyst and author of VideoNuze.com. 'It will certainly put Silverlight on the map with tens of millions of downloads because of the Olympics.' – Daisy Whitney, TVWeek* ** *It's not often when a piece of technology impresses me enough that I do the 'wow' thing when I'm using it. But the Silverlight streaming video implementation on NBCOlympics.com is truly awesome … I have to give Microsoft and its technology partners that pulled this off for the Olympics a huge round of applause. – Jon Perlow, ZDNET* ** HTH. On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 9:27 AM, Cole Joplin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Scott, I'm not exactly on board with Silverlight will continue to have successes as it has today. It's far too early to make that broad a statement. One day, maybe, but today? No. The first real all-Silverlight site, Ice Cube's UVNTV.com, has not been successful. Big fanfare, bad video, losing traffic at the plugin download page, big dud. Second big fanfare is the Silverlight player for video of the Beijing Olympics. Again, video quality has been roundly criticized as awful. Online viewership is way down from what they expected. Today, people don't want to download the Silverlight plugin. That is not a success. Not yet. --Cole --- On *Sat, 8/16/08, Scott Barnes [EMAIL PROTECTED]* wrote: From: Scott Barnes [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [flexcoders] The end of ActionScript 3 as an EcmaScript 4 implementation To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com Date: Saturday, August 16, 2008, 1:30 AM Anatole, I understand there is a sense of umbrage towards Microsoft over this decision; I disagree with some of the wild theories floating around as to what the real motivation behind this is. Seven entities in total disagreed with Mozilla and Adobe that the proposal was a right fit. I however look forward to seeing what the next phase of this standard will become, and overall Silverlight will continue to have successes as it has today, if either decision were to be blessed around this said standard. Silverlight has the DLR, so if folks want to spin-up their own iteration of an ECMA standard of their choosing, you're more than welcome to it and I'd be curious to see how you triumph! HTH. On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 8:36 PM, Anatole Tartakovsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Scott,I hope you realize that this goes beyond Silverlight or any particular player - but to the heart of the browsers problems today - performance and robustness. If it was not for IE market share, ActionScript would of been de-facto ES4 standard as it is supported by Mozilla and would be quickly migrated to other OS browsers. And I have very low expectations of Microsoft willingness to maintain IE on par with performance, compatibility and robustness requirements - based on personal experience. The fact that this standard is blocked means war - and I would suggest as the first step for the community to create a plugin script implementation ( recognized as attribute on script tag, loaded along
Re: [flexcoders] The end of ActionScript 3 as an EcmaScript 4 implementation
Which JVM do you mean? Wouldn't you still have to have the Flash runtime engine to execute Flex? On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 6:47 PM, Josh McDonald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think we're missing a very important point here. This *is* a blow to Flex. Standard ECMAScript will be on the JVM, whereas ActionScript won't unless Adobe funds it. -- Howard Fore, [EMAIL PROTECTED] The universe tends toward maximum irony. Don't push it. - Jeff Atwood
Re: [flexcoders] The end of ActionScript 3 as an EcmaScript 4 implementation
--- On Thu, 8/14/08, Scott Barnes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: C# is an ECMA-334 standard. As to how this affects Silverlight? Cole, could you elaborate? Sure. Microsoft wants a new standard for web scripting using Silverlight's RIA framework via .NET and the Dynamic Language Runtime. They want to bring support for IronPython and IronRuby to web scripting. Some see that as a Microsoft technology lock-in. Just like some saw ES4 as an Adobe lock-in (or at least a validation of it). ECMA-334 was precisely about Microsoft making C# a standard. It's a standard, but not the standard. It's an off-shoot. So, perhaps it is best that history just repeats itself. Let them create a separate ECMA standard for Microsoft/Silverlight, and another for Adobe/Flash. Let's whip out some ECMA-402, and ECMA-402 -- pick a number. My point was that this was not going to get resolved in ES4, where one idea was going to get picked over the other. Standards promote commonality and adoption. Those things can translate into competitive advantage. Microsoft was not going to let Adobe have ES4 as the standard. It was too much of an advantage. --Cole
Re: [flexcoders] The end of ActionScript 3 as an EcmaScript 4 implementation
In what way is Silverlight proposing a new standard? ECMA decision has no affect on Silverlight. C# for example is a standard today, everything we are doing or using either adheres to a standard, furthemore XAML for example falls under our (Open Specification Promise) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Specification_Promise. The DLR was introduced to allow dynamic languages outside the mainstream the ability to enter the RIA space, without imposing restrictions or ensuring they must abide by C# or ActionScript to get access? I would of thought this is an obvious positive for RIA overall (Adobe's Ryan Stewart agrees - http://blogs.zdnet.com/Stewart/?p=356). Microsoft and several other folks (Yahoo!, DOJO etc) all agreed that this wasn't the right fit, but are all committed to ensure we find a right fit. *shrug*.. so lumping this entirely in Microsoft's lap is a little skewed in thinking. HTH. On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 8:37 AM, Cole Joplin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- On *Thu, 8/14/08, Scott Barnes [EMAIL PROTECTED]* wrote: C# is an ECMA-334 standard. As to how this affects Silverlight? Cole, could you elaborate? Sure. Microsoft wants a new standard for web scripting using Silverlight's RIA framework via .NET and the Dynamic Language Runtime. They want to bring support for IronPython and IronRuby to web scripting. Some see that as a Microsoft technology lock-in. Just like some saw ES4 as an Adobe lock-in (or at least a validation of it). ECMA-334 was precisely about Microsoft making C# a standard. It's a standard, but not the standard. It's an off-shoot. So, perhaps it is best that history just repeats itself. Let them create a separate ECMA standard for Microsoft/Silverlight, and another for Adobe/Flash. Let's whip out some ECMA-402, and ECMA-402 -- pick a number. My point was that this was not going to get resolved in ES4, where one idea was going to get picked over the other. Standards promote commonality and adoption. Those things can translate into competitive advantage. Microsoft was not going to let Adobe have ES4 as the standard. It was too much of an advantage. --Cole -- Regards, Scott Barnes Rich Client Platform Manager Microsoft. http://blogs.msdn.com/msmossyblog
Re: [flexcoders] The end of ActionScript 3 as an EcmaScript 4 implementation
Scott, I hope you realize that this goes beyond Silverlight or any particular player - but to the heart of the browsers problems today - performance and robustness. If it was not for IE market share, ActionScript would of been de-facto ES4 standard as it is supported by Mozilla and would be quickly migrated to other OS browsers. And I have very low expectations of Microsoft willingness to maintain IE on par with performance, compatibility and robustness requirements - based on personal experience. The fact that this standard is blocked means war - and I would suggest as the first step for the community to create a plugin script implementation ( recognized as attribute on script tag, loaded along with Flash for faster market penetration) to give developers a choice between old javascript and actionscript - that can remove most of the power Microsoft exercised last week Sincerely, Anatole Tartakovsky On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 8:00 PM, Scott Barnes [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: In what way is Silverlight proposing a new standard? ECMA decision has no affect on Silverlight. C# for example is a standard today, everything we are doing or using either adheres to a standard, furthemore XAML for example falls under our (Open Specification Promise) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Specification_Promise. The DLR was introduced to allow dynamic languages outside the mainstream the ability to enter the RIA space, without imposing restrictions or ensuring they must abide by C# or ActionScript to get access? I would of thought this is an obvious positive for RIA overall (Adobe's Ryan Stewart agrees - http://blogs.zdnet.com/Stewart/?p=356). Microsoft and several other folks (Yahoo!, DOJO etc) all agreed that this wasn't the right fit, but are all committed to ensure we find a right fit. *shrug*.. so lumping this entirely in Microsoft's lap is a little skewed in thinking. HTH. On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 8:37 AM, Cole Joplin [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: --- On *Thu, 8/14/08, Scott Barnes [EMAIL PROTECTED]*wrote: C# is an ECMA-334 standard. As to how this affects Silverlight? Cole, could you elaborate? Sure. Microsoft wants a new standard for web scripting using Silverlight's RIA framework via .NET and the Dynamic Language Runtime. They want to bring support for IronPython and IronRuby to web scripting. Some see that as a Microsoft technology lock-in. Just like some saw ES4 as an Adobe lock-in (or at least a validation of it). ECMA-334 was precisely about Microsoft making C# a standard. It's a standard, but not the standard. It's an off-shoot. So, perhaps it is best that history just repeats itself. Let them create a separate ECMA standard for Microsoft/Silverlight, and another for Adobe/Flash. Let's whip out some ECMA-402, and ECMA-402 -- pick a number. My point was that this was not going to get resolved in ES4, where one idea was going to get picked over the other. Standards promote commonality and adoption. Those things can translate into competitive advantage. Microsoft was not going to let Adobe have ES4 as the standard. It was too much of an advantage. --Cole -- Regards, Scott Barnes Rich Client Platform Manager Microsoft. http://blogs.msdn.com/msmossyblog
[flexcoders] The end of ActionScript 3 as an EcmaScript 4 implementation
http://whydoeseverythingsuck.com/2008/08/ru-roh-adobe-screwed-by-ecmascript.html -- blog: whydoeseverythingsuck.com
Re: [flexcoders] The end of ActionScript 3 as an EcmaScript 4 implementation
https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es3.x-discuss/2008-August/000463.html On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 4:55 PM, hank williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://whydoeseverythingsuck.com/2008/08/ru-roh-adobe-screwed-by-ecmascript.html -- blog: whydoeseverythingsuck.com -- j:pn \\no comment
Re: [flexcoders] The end of ActionScript 3 as an EcmaScript 4 implementation
It may not be an EcmaScript4 implementation, but that's just semantics. ES4 is becoming Harmony, which is a new project with a unified working group, but it is the continuation of what we know as ES4. So, if it makes you feel better, think of AS3 as an early preview of Harmony! ;-) Troy.
Re: [flexcoders] The end of ActionScript 3 as an EcmaScript 4 implementation
annotations, packages what else? On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 7:37 PM, hank williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Troy, This is not true. Much of ES4, things like packages and lots of other stuff is going away. What they are going to implement is much closer to the current javascript than it is to AS3. It is a big step backward caused by microsoft's unwillingness to support ES4 in Internet Explorer. On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 1:33 PM, Troy Gilbert [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: It may not be an EcmaScript4 implementation, but that's just semantics. ES4 is becoming Harmony, which is a new project with a unified working group, but it is the continuation of what we know as ES4. So, if it makes you feel better, think of AS3 as an early preview of Harmony! ;-) Troy. -- blog: whydoeseverythingsuck.com -- j:pn \\no comment
Re: [flexcoders] The end of ActionScript 3 as an EcmaScript 4 implementation
So.. Is there any blog posts from any Adobe people on this issue? Since all we have heard for the last 2 years with AS3 is it's 'following ECMA4 drafts'. If there are no packages in Harmony, then what is Adobe going to say? Mike On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 1:37 PM, hank williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Troy, This is not true. Much of ES4, things like packages and lots of other stuff is going away. What they are going to implement is much closer to the current javascript than it is to AS3. It is a big step backward caused by microsoft's unwillingness to support ES4 in Internet Explorer. On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 1:33 PM, Troy Gilbert [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: It may not be an EcmaScript4 implementation, but that's just semantics. ES4 is becoming Harmony, which is a new project with a unified working group, but it is the continuation of what we know as ES4. So, if it makes you feel better, think of AS3 as an early preview of Harmony! ;-) Troy. -- blog: whydoeseverythingsuck.com -- Teoti Graphix, LLC http://www.teotigraphix.com Teoti Graphix Blog http://www.blog.teotigraphix.com You can find more by solving the problem then by 'asking the question'.
Re: [flexcoders] The end of ActionScript 3 as an EcmaScript 4 implementation
Troy, This is not true. Much of ES4, things like packages and lots of other stuff is going away. What they are going to implement is much closer to the current javascript than it is to AS3. It is a big step backward caused by microsoft's unwillingness to support ES4 in Internet Explorer. On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 1:33 PM, Troy Gilbert [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: It may not be an EcmaScript4 implementation, but that's just semantics. ES4 is becoming Harmony, which is a new project with a unified working group, but it is the continuation of what we know as ES4. So, if it makes you feel better, think of AS3 as an early preview of Harmony! ;-) Troy. -- blog: whydoeseverythingsuck.com
Re: [flexcoders] The end of ActionScript 3 as an EcmaScript 4 implementation
This is not true. Much of ES4, things like packages and lots of other stuff is going away. Sorry, wasn't aware of that. I guess that makes since, though, since Crockford's focus seems to be on the script focus of JavaScript and less on developing it as a large scale language (hence the removal of packages, etc.). It is a big step backward caused by microsoft's unwillingness to support ES4 in Internet Explorer. I don't quite see how it's a big step backward *or* a black eye for Adobe (as your blog argued). There are dozens of languages in widespread use out there... AS3 being (approximately) based on a standard, while a good bullet point for marketing, never yielded any advantage as far as I could see. Troy.
Re: [flexcoders] The end of ActionScript 3 as an EcmaScript 4 implementation
We're working on a coherent statement. On 8/14/08 10:40 AM, Michael Schmalle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So.. Is there any blog posts from any Adobe people on this issue? Since all we have heard for the last 2 years with AS3 is it's 'following ECMA4 drafts'. If there are no packages in Harmony, then what is Adobe going to say? Mike On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 1:37 PM, hank williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Troy, This is not true. Much of ES4, things like packages and lots of other stuff is going away. What they are going to implement is much closer to the current javascript than it is to AS3. It is a big step backward caused by microsoft's unwillingness to support ES4 in Internet Explorer. On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 1:33 PM, Troy Gilbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It may not be an EcmaScript4 implementation, but that's just semantics. ES4 is becoming Harmony, which is a new project with a unified working group, but it is the continuation of what we know as ES4. So, if it makes you feel better, think of AS3 as an early preview of Harmony! ;-) Troy.
Re: [flexcoders] The end of ActionScript 3 as an EcmaScript 4 implementation
I don't quite see how it's a big step backward *or* a black eye for Adobe (as your blog argued). There are dozens of languages in widespread use out there... AS3 being (approximately) based on a standard, while a good bullet point for marketing, never yielded any advantage as far as I could see. This is a valid point, but the reason I call it a black eye is because adobe spent a lot of time hanging their hat on the idea that this was going to be a standard. To the extent that was helpful to them (I presume it was otherwise they wouldnt have bothered) it is no longer an accurate statement. Adobe wanted the industry to move one way, and Microsoft forced it to move another way. Hank Troy. -- blog: whydoeseverythingsuck.com
Re: [flexcoders] The end of ActionScript 3 as an EcmaScript 4 implementation
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 1:39 PM, Johannes Nel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: annotations, packages what else? We dont know precisely, but Brendan Eich is telegraphing that it is big steps backwards by saying the following: 1. Focus work on ES3.1 with full collaboration of all parties, and target two interoperable implementations by early next year. 2. Collaborate on the next step beyond ES3.1, which will include syntactic extensions but which will be more modest than ES4 in both semantic and syntactic innovation. 3. Some ES4 proposals have been deemed unsound for the Web, and are off the table for good: packages, namespaces and early binding. This conclusion is key to Harmony. 4. Other goals and ideas from ES4 are being rephrased to keep consensus in the committee; these include a notion of classes based on existing ES3 concepts combined with proposed ES3.1 extensions. To me #4 the idea that classes work the old way is also a big deal, though exactly what that means I am not entirely sure. AS3 changed its class model in what I think was a good way. I'd hate to go back. Hank
Re: [flexcoders] The end of ActionScript 3 as an EcmaScript 4 implementation
To me #4 the idea that classes work the old way is also a big deal, though exactly what that means I am not entirely sure. AS3 changed its class model in what I think was a good way. I'd hate to go back. I think Harmony is a move in the right direction for moving forward JavaScript (I agree with Crockford) in the browser. I also agree that if AS was to blindly follow suit it would be a mistake as well. Fortunately, I don't see any reason why AS would do such a thing. AS3 has more in common with C# and Java, which is the right way to go for the direction the product line is headed (Flex, etc.). AS2 mirrors JavaScript, which I think was appropriate at the time (inside the Flash IDE). Troy.
Re: [flexcoders] The end of ActionScript 3 as an EcmaScript 4 implementation
I think what happened was inevitable. This is not an isolated incident. Microsoft is holding up the standards committees they are on. It's just the reality. We can all be honest about it. Microsoft just refused, which is what they are doing everywhere. The reason I call it a black eye is because adobe spent a lot of time hanging their hat on the idea that this was going to be a standard. I agree. It's okay for Adobe to let go. It was a bridge too far. There's no shame to it. It's over. Continue on. Adobe wanted the industry to move one way, and Microsoft forced it to move another way. Not exactly. Microsoft lost all its Silverlight and JScript initiatives in this decision. Adobe and Microsoft both lost what they wanted. The rest of the committee members decided they were getting nowhere, so they stopped it, and they were totally right. In fact, I expect this scenario to continue in other committees. HTML5. CSS3. I don't think Microsoft could deliver standards progress even if they deeply wanted to. After being an isolated impediment for so long, it's only a matter of time before everyone else gives up on them. There is a limit, and I think we're reaching it now. That's a good thing. You know the funny part to all this? Having Microsoft in a standards committee called Harmony is the ultimate oxymoron. This is in Oslo, so I submit they should call the committee something more appropriate like Fjord or Loki. --Cole
Re: [flexcoders] The end of ActionScript 3 as an EcmaScript 4 implementation
I think we're missing a very important point here. This *is* a blow to Flex. Standard ECMAScript will be on the JVM, whereas ActionScript won't unless Adobe funds it. -Josj On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 8:34 AM, Cole Joplin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think what happened was inevitable. This is not an isolated incident. Microsoft is holding up the standards committees they are on. It's just the reality. We can all be honest about it. Microsoft just refused, which is what they are doing everywhere. The reason I call it a black eye is because adobe spent a lot of time hanging their hat on the idea that this was going to be a standard. I agree. It's okay for Adobe to let go. It was a bridge too far. There's no shame to it. It's over. Continue on. Adobe wanted the industry to move one way, and Microsoft forced it to move another way. Not exactly. Microsoft lost all its Silverlight and JScript initiatives in this decision. Adobe and Microsoft both lost what they wanted. The rest of the committee members decided they were getting nowhere, so they stopped it, and they were totally right. In fact, I expect this scenario to continue in other committees. HTML5. CSS3. I don't think Microsoft could deliver standards progress even if they deeply wanted to. After being an isolated impediment for so long, it's only a matter of time before everyone else gives up on them. There is a limit, and I think we're reaching it now. That's a good thing. You know the funny part to all this? Having Microsoft in a standards committee called Harmony is the ultimate oxymoron. This is in Oslo, so I submit they should call the committee something more appropriate like Fjord or Loki. --Cole -- Therefore, send not to know For whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee. :: Josh 'G-Funk' McDonald :: 0437 221 380 :: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [flexcoders] The end of ActionScript 3 as an EcmaScript 4 implementation
You know the funny part to all this? Having Microsoft in a standards committee called Harmony is the ultimate oxymoron. Hilarious!
Re: [flexcoders] The end of ActionScript 3 as an EcmaScript 4 implementation
Hey folks, our public response is at http://blogs.adobe.com/open/2008/08/blog_entry_dated_81408_715_pm.html
Re: [flexcoders] The end of ActionScript 3 as an EcmaScript 4 implementation
FYI.. C# is an ECMA-334 standard. As to how this affects Silverlight? Cole, could you elaborate? http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-334.htm On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 3:34 PM, Cole Joplin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think what happened was inevitable. This is not an isolated incident. Microsoft is holding up the standards committees they are on. It's just the reality. We can all be honest about it. Microsoft just refused, which is what they are doing everywhere. The reason I call it a black eye is because adobe spent a lot of time hanging their hat on the idea that this was going to be a standard. I agree. It's okay for Adobe to let go. It was a bridge too far. There's no shame to it. It's over. Continue on. Adobe wanted the industry to move one way, and Microsoft forced it to move another way. Not exactly. Microsoft lost all its Silverlight and JScript initiatives in this decision. Adobe and Microsoft both lost what they wanted. The rest of the committee members decided they were getting nowhere, so they stopped it, and they were totally right. In fact, I expect this scenario to continue in other committees. HTML5. CSS3. I don't think Microsoft could deliver standards progress even if they deeply wanted to. After being an isolated impediment for so long, it's only a matter of time before everyone else gives up on them. There is a limit, and I think we're reaching it now. That's a good thing. You know the funny part to all this? Having Microsoft in a standards committee called Harmony is the ultimate oxymoron. This is in Oslo, so I submit they should call the committee something more appropriate like Fjord or Loki. --Cole -- Regards, Scott Barnes Rich Client Platform Manager Microsoft. http://blogs.msdn.com/msmossyblog
